VAT on property

There are multiple VAT issues that arise in a property context. For a checklist-style summary of the key VAT issues to consider when undertaking a property transaction, see: VAT on property transactions—checklist.

The default position is that most supplies of interests in or rights over land and buildings (including freehold sales and leasing) are exempt from VAT, but there are many exceptions.

The effect of making an exempt supply of land is that no VAT is payable, but the person making the supply cannot usually recover any of the VAT (the input tax) incurred on their expenses, such as in relation to building work and fees.

In practice, the exceptions mean that most dealings in commercial property are not, in fact, exempt, and that exemption is only really the norm for lettings of residential property. Since exemption is not always a desirable result, active steps may need to be taken to fall outside it.

Where exemption applies, it will cover the sale price or premium, any rent and anything else paid by way of consideration for the interest in land. This generally extends to service charges

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents